To be or not to be critical?

critical-thinkingby Tony DePhillips

One of the greatest abilities a person can have is the ability to spot out-points.

To be able to imagine the ideal scene and to then “see” departures from that ideal is a very valuable ability. This is a paraphrase of some ideas from L. Ron Hubbard and I agree with them.

Couldn’t you also say that spotting out-points was also “critical“? Such as “I don’t like all the regging going on in the church”.

The Church of Scientology likes to discourage it’s members from being critical. While on Solo Nots I was greatly discouraged from communicating out-points I saw within the church. I do believe that I had bypassed charge (painful emotion) connected to the out-points that I was observing. I was not able to communicate this painful emotion in my auditing at Flag (Mecca of technical imperfection) because any origination of mine that pointed out an out-point was turned against me and became a fact that I must have some sins (“overts” they call them) and missed withholds (someone almost found out about a   sin). So instead of getting my own therapy (called auditing) I got wrong “indications” that further irritated me and drove me down the tone scale.

Scientology processing is supposed to bring you up the tone scale. Scientology auditing when misapplied can push you down the tone scale and that is what is ruthlessly done by the church. This is so much the case that the theetie wheetie (sweetness and light, nothing ever wrong) types can skate right through their auditing and are actually created by the church. You see the church doesn’t want anyone with skills of observing out-points so they start to punish them when they do start pointing out out-points concerned with them. The radical church of Scientology doesn’t mind if you spot out-points about your friends or society even though this is to some degree punished. But just try to be critical about the church and see where that gets you.

I once wrote a KR on dm for being critical of George Bush and Bill Clinton (two separate occasions) at International events. I understood that per policy the “church” was not supposed to be political. So dm’s “critical” comments about standing US Presidents, (even if true) (If you used their logic then dm must have overts on Bill Clinton and George Bush, which in this case is probably true.) was probably not a good idea.

I ended up getting interrogated in my sessions to see if I had “sins” against dm. For those reading this that may not understand this kind of “tech” I will explain it a bit. In essence the idea is that if you criticize something then you have sins or crimes or misdeeds against the thing you are critical about. The “logical” conclusion to this is that if you have communicated all of your “sins, misdeeds” and taken responsibility for them then you would not be critical about anything. You would be in harmony with the universe and be a full OT (spiritual being who can leap tall buildings at a single bound).

There may be some validity to this theory. I don’t believe it to be an absolute.

The church pushes this kind of think so hard that I think it contributes to people losing their ability to think critically and see what is wrong with things and then be able to correct them. If you are not willing to be critical and to voice your observations, you will never be able to correct anything in life and will become a failure.

If you are still in/participating with the church I suggest that you sit down and write up all the things that you think are wrong with the organization. Then write up all the good things you can observe.

If you can’t think of anything try this; Decide for yourself what the best group of people would be like? Would they want to become more able and spiritual? Would they be able to communicate freely about anything?

Would they be free to think and analyze data?

Would they be free to discuss opposing ideas?

Would a person in good shape be able to confront other ideas that didn’t agree with his own?

Or would they be better off listening to the leader to tell them how to think?

Would they rather have someone else decide for them what is wrong with society?

Would they like the leader of their group to inhibit their free ability to communicate?

Would they think there are some people that they could not confront?

Would they feel that there were some ideas that would have a devastating effect on them and therefore decide they should not communicate?

Would an they be able to confront someone who was against their group? Would they be able to have a rational discussion with someone else who had different ideas or would it be better to avoid others with different ideas?

Would it be good for a group to pressure it’s members to give large amounts of their money to create an Ideal building?

Would it be okay with a person in good shape if their friends had observed things within the group to be improved that they be able to discuss these things openly?

There can be two extremes. A person who can “see” nothing is wrong with anything and the person who can “see” only the bad and nothing good.

To be able to do a great job of analyzing and improving you would have to also be able to spot the “plus points” or good things going on and strengthen them. Try to handle the bad and improve the good.

As an example there are some things good about the RCS. They deliver some courses that have some good information. They deliver auditing which helps people sometimes, etc. There are some good things about dm. He has nice hair. He is despicable as a person but he is also charismatic at events.

Try making a list of good and bad things in your own life and strengthen the good and eliminate the bad and improve your ability to spot the “bad” things and don’t be worried about your sins. You are basically good and when you want to disclose things that you don’t feel good about, find a good friend that you can trust and unburden yourself, because carrying around baggage that might make you feel shame is an out-point too and should be handled when it is real to you and you feel ready

Advertisements

52 thoughts on “To be or not to be critical?

  1. University for me was all about critical thinking. If in doing so I was told I was revealing my ‘sins’ it wouldn’t have been half as much fun and I’m sure I would have ended up a bit crazy.

  2. In HCOPL 31 December 1959R BLOW-OFFS LRH writes ” … and certainly one can treat people so badly that they have no choice but to leave … ” furthermore “Almost anyone, no matter his position, can remedy a situation no matter what’s wrong if he or she really wants to.”
    So obviously even LRH can think of situations where leaving is not based on the own overts of the person. Notice the world ALMOST in the beginning of the second quote. I think in case of the RCS the word ALMOST applies. Those who tried to remedy the situation are in the Hole or escaped (see first quote).

  3. Tony what a sane commentary as well as a genuine analaysis of a wonderful ideal approach to life. I wish the church could view it the way you describe it!

    • What does the Church of Scientology feel that is getting invalidated when it receives criticism?
      It is the ego and “rightness” of DM, isn’t it? It is how DM is interpreting LRH’s materials, isn’t it?

    • Why should ego come into play when looking at knowledge? it is what it is.
      Either the knowledge is consistent (no outpoints), or there is some inconsistency (outpoints). When one observes an inconsistency, then one should simply look at it more closely until one recognizes the source of that inconsistency.
      At the root of an inconsistency there is always some assumption. It doesn’t matter who is making that assumption. Just by recognizing the assumption one feels better. The integrity of one’s understanding is then reestablished.

    • What assumption the Church is making about clearing the planet?
      Why is the Church so focused on money?
      Why is the Church so focused on a fixed ideology (fixed interpretation of LRH’s materials)?
      Why is the Church so focused on condemning the field of mental health even when that field has improved over last 50 years?
      Why is the Church so focused on amassing real estate and not on building productive organizations?
      Why is the Church trying to manipulate the justice system in its favor?
      Why does the Church feel that it is right and all others (the wog system) is wrong when it is not so black and white?
      There is a lot of goodness out there in the world. Why doesn’t the Church recognize that goodness?

  4. Hello !! I would add to all these interesting ideas that taking responsibility is also being able to spot out-points, name them, communicate about them in order to make things change. So the CoS refuses the right to speak AND to take responsibility, in addition to the introversion leaded by the supposed sins revealed by the disagreement. Everything contrary to the being’s expansion intended by LRH.

  5. Thank you, Tony. Well described.
    After writing 34 KRs (Knowledge Reports about out-nesses), and having them flung back at me in my auditing, it was clear that this remedy to inform staff that the toilet paper was finished in the bathrooms, or the lights in the stairwell didn’t work, or even worse – that the auditing session was way off tech – or the new Student Hat had factual errors – one but concluded that this system of communication did not work for parishioners. And may I add, that I undertook to supply the toilet paper and repair the light bulbs! I would take responsibility to those out points where I could. But no.
    KRs work very well on the reverse flow as we have seen! And here up to a point – a KR is written on you, for example, but you don’t get a copy to respond, or action.
    And this was before the regging for money got into full swing. So, with the aforementioned system very well grooved in, any expressing, reporting, critiquing, or saying anything contra to staff or SO about the general management directions like the Ideal Org strategy, would then simply be viewed as suppressive, and not good communication between parties. Management didn’t want to hear your views.
    Now, let’s take the potential views of the highest tech trained – the Class XIIs. 53 ever made. Three or four have dropped their bodies, and more than 80% of the balance have been declared. Then we find that between 60% to 70% of SO members at Int Management have been declared, and a lot not even left but in the Hole. That’s how one deals with potential critical terminals.
    In 2000, Miscaviage informed all the staff at Hemet that they were all SP – the famous recorded message from DM.
    Everyone around DM is an SP in his view.
    Now, LRH says: “The type three PTS is mostly in institutions or would be. On this case the… apparent SP is spread all over the world and is often more than all the people there are — for the person sometimes has ghosts about him or demons and they are just more apparent SPs but imaginary as beings as well.”
    This description fits Miscaviage perfectly! He has been gunning and ruining everyone around him for ~27 years, and the real statistics of Scientology proves it!
    What ticks me off that it took me a decade to resign.
    It took me a decade to find the thousands of like minded people, and now I’m so thrilled to find that the original, unadulterated, Bridge is available outside the CoS, at realistic prices. Original PLs and HCOBs available in LRH’s hand writing as proof of being the original thing. Original Run Downs’ write-ups in the old Man’s scribble. Wow!
    I feel great. For the first time in a decade.

    • Frik,
      I got that.
      Back in the day I tried to handle “management’s” out tech and off policy by writing reports per Staff Member Reports and ended up having these reports used in Roll Back and then being ordered to the “Truth Rundown”.
      The reason why (I was told by an RTC Rep) they continue with the Golden Age of Tech even though the “why” found was based on an eval done by a complete moron who had never done HDSEC who obviously had never read the HCOPL “Drills Allowed” or the other one written on the same day “Hidden Data Line” was because they had put so much money into promoting and instituting it.
      A typical justification.
      I’m sure there is another even more basic reason which is covered in the HCOB C/S series 22 Psychosis for why they are doing it.
      Anyway trying to introduce some sanity into that seething pit of insanity officially known as the “Church of Scientology” is an adventurous exercise in futility these days.
      Like most bureaucracies they are totally certain of their rightness and can never consider the possibility that they could be wrong or in error.
      In other words self examination is not one of their strong points which is one of the key characteristics of an Antisocial Personality.

      • Well put, remoteviewed. “… one of the key characteristics of an Antisocial Personality.”
        One is trying to rationalise an irrationality.

  6. I totally agree, being critical if done causative is the right thing to do. How are we ever going to improve our business, 2d, life in general if we don’t look at the pros and cons. The church makes you feel so ashamed if you have an opinion.

  7. “There are rightnesses and wrongnesses in conduct and society and life at large, but random, carping 1.1 criticism when not borne out in fact is only an effort to reduce the size of the target of the overt.” (HCOB Justification)
    The organization can not differentiate fact from fiction or rightnesses from wrongnesses anymore, so anything negatively stated, even if true, is all lumped into “random, carping criticism”. A=A

  8. Good, sensible article Tony.
    This might get moderated, but what the hell, let’s call a spade a spade. The comments on here sort of skirt around the fact that LRH is the one who wrote the tech on this, not DM. And while in some situations it might hold true, I think in most, it does not.
    I think it was written purely as a means to control any form of revolt. And it worked VERY well. Look how many decades we all hung around with unasked questions because we knew it would be turned back on us. This is actually a pity. If LRH had allowed questioning, commenting and more contribution from others I think the tech might have been more workable. Having said that – I still do not believe it has ever been or ever will be a Bridge to total freedom.
    It became a cookie cutter tech in that the exact same processes were prescribed for one and all. Each level had to be completed. If LRH had allowed criticism and contribution, he might have seen that some did well on some processes while others did not need them.
    I am aware that DM has taken all the negative things (that shouldn’t have been there in the first place) like O/Ws, disconnection, SP declarations, having to do each and every process etc, to a whole new level of badness.
    But if you want to get really real – you have to be prepared to look at the whole picture, otherwise you will carry the bad or useless with the good as you try to move forward. If you have the attitude that LRH never did a wrong thing in the tech, well… it’s up to each of us to make up our own minds… but I think you will be selling yourself short. I have never seen an OT or a clear, whether made under LRH’s C/Sing, during LRH’s lifetime or after, live up to the descriptions and EPs given to those states by LRH himself. Never. Good people, yes. But not achieving what LRH said they would. I am happy to be proved wrong.

      • Good evening, Robert.
        Thank you. When one has to define thinking into new terms such as critical thinking as done by Roger Darlington in the article, it opens the door to other definitions, such as ‘cooking thinking’, ‘chicken farming thinking’, ‘stealing cars thinking’ . . . Why not just the good old THINKING. I mean, that’s what this thetan does. THINK. And the process is the same regardless of the topic. Darlington’s treatise is no different to all the management theories so in vogue from time to time. And then they simply disappear. And despite all the management gurus claims that you can teach people to think, I’ve never seen it. But get people up Tone – they do then!
        And when the Book Store Officer tries to sell me the latest new book from RTC on the Purif, I go into and evaluate the situation critically, look at all the factors, and given that I’ve done the Purif twice already, in three billionth of a second, I say “No thank you!”.
        And when the OTC wants to milk me for another sum of money – ditto!
        And when I compare the original hand written Basic book by LRH with what DM has issued – my response is now not printable.

    • Draco,
      Thank you. This site is for Scientologists not on lines to the Church of Scientology, to communicate freely amongst each other. My definition of a Scientologist is one who practices the practical philosophy of Scientology as developed by LRH.
      What happens in the very private lives of Scientologists on receiving and using Scientology is seldom put on stage. It is simply not that type of religion – it is a way of life.
      Many auditing procedures were changed and altered by LRH on evidence submitted by various senior auditors who found more workable SOPs. And LRH acknowledged those in the new HCOB or PL or whatever was then sent out. The names of the ‘critical terminal’ is there, with thanks from him.
      Now, if you’ve had some auditing, and the exact procedure altered from that which LRH laid out, you will find that it simply doesn’t work. Not even close. LRH had already done the screwing around, had his ribs broken, shoulder dislocated, fell ill, in trying to find the best way out. So, to protect the human being from screwing around, and then fouling up everything, and then claiming that Scientology doesn’t work, he put in place those PLs that hopefully prevents alterations.
      The target is your bank. And your bank is structured no different to mine. And that is why the steps are the same for all of us on the Bridge. And one pc might run quicker on one step and other longer – but the bank still needs all the steps done to arrive at the EP. And certain Run Downs would be more beneficial to others than to you – but not that you won’t benefit if you did do it!
      “LRH never did a wrong thing in the tech . . . ” According to still practising Class XIIs, the answer is no. But maybe you’re a Class XIII?
      Lastly, living your life through what you THINK other people have achieved, despite not living intimately with OTXIIIs or even Clears, is a foggy viewpoint to say the least. LRH-Scientology technology is not a debating society, and what is true for you, is true. And please remember – no-one is forcing you right now to be where you are. You are free to move on.

      • Just stating my viewpoint, like everyone else here, Frik. However, you are right. This blog is mainly for scientologists. And I am not one anymore. Although I had been one for decades, so do know whereof I speak. I have seen inside and outside of the SO, the public, the staff members.
        All I am saying, is if you really want the truth – you need to look at the whole picture. If you don’t want to see or hear anything critical of LRH – that’s your decision. I just think that after all the years of being kept in the dark, we should not censor our own research now that we have started looking. There are many people who do not think LRH was perfect, but still find value in his tech.
        As I said – just stating my opinion. The moderator was free to not post it if it violated the rules.

    • You are right, Draco. LRH started it. DM is taking it to a whole new level. Contrary to popular belief that LRH didn’t benefit financially from Scn, he did, indeed. He took $milliions out of Scn. It was all about making the money. The truth is sometimes hard to contemplate.

      I’ve had the courage to inspect people’s books based on information furnished by SO close to LRH from the very beginning right to the end, including Ron Jnr, not a savoury character himself, but his father’s confidant for at least a decade, and the picture is not pretty. Far from it. He did at least get out. He wouldn’t allow any of his family, that is, his wife or children, come into Scn. He knew too much.

      DM is skimming $millions from the orgs, Flag is left with only ten percent of its earnings every week. It’s what LRH did.

  9. Does anybody know of the whereabouts of Tony Rogers and his wife Sylvia,formerly of Durban Org in the late 80`s…last I heard they had joined the SO around 1990/1.Ray and Jeanne Rogers were family and joined too if I remember correctly…Them was good people!What happened to them all?Also Dave and Jane Luscombe?Anybody know anything?

  10. Well said and sane, Tony! It is un-scientological not to consider all viewpoints on all four flows. If the Church does not even want to be looked at from all viewpoints, it will disappear from its own lack of willingness to confront and its own lack of beingness.

  11. Hay Tony you really are pushing the limits of our relationship, to say DM is charismatic, WTF!!#@%&!!!! cartoon hair style for sure,classic 60s

    The rest is rather dapper old chap, now strings to our beareds, and hi ho hi ho off to work we go with a bottle of rum and a stinking bum,

  12. I believe there are 3 aspects to this critical thought thing.
    One is a case condition where a person has overts he hasnt taken responsibility for, unburden those and he can go on to make case gain.
    Then there is the person at a level of the tone scale who is hyper critical. Put him on the Grades, properly done, and his tone level will improve to where he can start to see rightnesses. Finally there is the use of LRHs Data Series, which is all about spotting outpoints, ie being critical, but in an analytical sort of way to uncover a non survival situation. This is where I was for years, saw the outpoints but thought it was me somehow. The beauty of this is that now the Ideal Scene can be achieved, because the situation has more or less landed in our laps after we have not issed it for so long and thought it was us.
    dave is scared of number 3 because a brief look at his stats and its plain he is a fuck up, so he lumps all criticism from others under no 1. Except for him of course.

  13. POWER: “The ability to maintain a position in space” LRH — You have power, they don’t. The disconnection they suffer from is much worse. They suffer from a disconnection from their own rationality and integrity, that is why they all needed you before. Who is going to help them now? I feel sad for them. You have POWER! What is greaeness? you will see it looking back at you in your mirror! Cheers!

  14. Please allow me to ask an honest, nonjudgemental question. Why do you believe Hubbard was correct about his tone scale? I mean no disrespect at all, but to many of us outside of Scientology, it seems that he simply made it up. So I’m curious as to what exactly makes you believe in it as a core tenet of your practice. I read this blog occasionally and you all seem like very good people. I’m not posting this to insult anyone. I’m only curious about your views, so any answer from anyone would be appreciated. Thanks.

    • I look at the tone scale as a tool or a guide line, not an absolute. I think there is a lot of workability knowing that some or in an emotional tone that lends to survival and others maybe not so much. I think the book Science of Survival is one of Hubbards best.

    • I found “Trust” at 4.0 to be inaccurate.
      Before I started Scientology, I did not trust Scientology due to some things I had read on the internet about it. This was sane.
      I had no idea that the church would lie about people and events to hide the crimes – like Lisa McPherson. I read everything after I left and I was convinced that the Church had everything to do with her demise and covered it up. It is quite disturbing. The dead agent pack made it look like she simply died of an embolism and the DA told me that Germany was behind it.
      The Dead Agent packs I was shown about the various situations were lies. These were made up to make Scientology right and the others wrong.
      When I took Science of Survival course and read trust is 4.0 – I wanted to be 4.0 so I trusted everything in my CHURCH; the staff and Organization.
      This was a grave mistake. This is manipulation and the Organization takes advantage of the good nature of trusting souls who want to help and be helped.
      I think it should be corrected to – Trust is earned and not automatically given and one should evaluating everything – good, bad, ugly before giving trust. That was a vague term to put on 4.0 and w/o clarification – could be construed as this was written to manipulate people into trusting Scientology always.
      This is a CHURCH and people are trusting that they will not be lied to and deceived. For example, people are sold “services” with promises of “Having the Correct Technology” and being told that it is DONE. In 1996, 2007, 2013-14 SP’s got in and changed to tech and now everyone has to buy it and do it all over again. 64 years of selling services that were not correct? That is fraud!
      Thanks for the post today! Great subject to discuss and really look at so we can get to the truth and nothing but the truth. THAT is why I got into Scientology and after years of being lied to and deceived – I just want the truth regardless of how much it hurts!

    • Hello Question. To answer some of your question, Hubbard stated, in the Science of Survival book I think it was, that the tone scale was not ‘his’ but something he’d observed.
      Like Tony, I find it extremely workable. Often, when I ignored a person’s tone level and went into a venture with that person, when it backfired and/or the person royally stabbed me in the back, I would be immensely annoyed with myself! I had observed the tone level from the beginning and had knowingly put on the shutters.
      Knowing how to use the tone scale – for instance, when you’re anticipating a person’s ‘attack’ and you pose as bored, it dissipates the ‘attack’. I’ve used this tactic many times and it’s never failed to work.
      Not for a minute do I say it’s perfect but it’s as near as damn it if you use it as I’ve mentioned.
      There does seem to be evidence that the higher a person is on the tone scale, the more ethical he is and the more trustworthy.
      Mr Hubbard may have booboo-ed in some areas, but I believe he got this piece of tech right. In fact, he got a lot right. He’s messed up big time, too, but the trick is not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

      • I have grown. Not so long ago, I was of the opinion that LRH was perfect, that he could do no wrong; ditto his tech. Well, I’ve had a most rude awakening – on both accounts!
        Fortunately, I have sorted out with myself which tech I agree with and can use; and which I’m suspicious of – another bit of maturity. Good for me.

  15. “…There are some good things about dm.” This reminds me about a joke I heard once.
    An old bastard dies, and gets a funeral. The minister realizes that he really was a real bastard all his life, and the minister could not get anyone to eulogize him. The minister realized that he would have to do the job himself, but even he had trouble to remember something good about the old bastard. Finally he said “well, he wasn’t always as bad as he usually was.”
    If nothing else, dm is an excellent example of a textbook item. (Of course, he wasn’t as bad when he was somewhere else.)

  16. when you own a business, as an employee, you follow the rules or you don’t. There is exchange involved.
    If you follow the rules, you stay employed.
    If you don’t follow the rules, you get fired.
    Are we talking religion here or are we talking a business here?

  17. One thing about Scientology is that you have to think for yourself, and keep thinking for yourself. If you accept a stable datum, it has to be re-evaluated every now and then, because life changes.
    “Policy is what works.” That’s nice. Policy is there to solve a problem. Things change. Maybe the problem has changed also. The policy may need re-evaluation. For that matter, do we know the original problem that was addressed?
    I have heard of some criticisms of some policies that Ron made. OK. Did it make sense at that time and did it solve any problems at that time? Is the problem still there?
    I like the idea of a history project that would fill in the data of what was going on at that time, so that we could evaluate, in hindsight, if it made sense at that time, and then evaluate by what has since changed, if it makes sense now.
    All of this comes down to ‘keep thinking for yourself’.
    There is also the difference between an “Applied Philosophy” and a “Workable Technology”. Also “Justice” and “Ethics”.
    Heck! There is so much to communicate about, and from so many different viewpoints. Life is grand.

  18. I always liked the quote: ” A being is as alive as he can communicate”~ LRH
    If you extrapolate from there you would get: A group is as alive as it can communicate. That would make sense right?
    For RCS to try and shut down communication is really admitting that it wants to die, and is dying.
    The only ones who will salvage anything from this colossal ship wreck will be those who are not afraid to communicate their ideas. You have to keep thinking and growing or you will stagnate as if you were trapped in a cocoon.

  19. Not to mention that if you increase communication you will also increase your reality and affinity. It has always been my experience that when I communicate I feel better and more cause.
    I believe that the “church” made the parishioners PTS by encroaching on their ability to communicate and to be afraid to communicate. Thus causing them to shrink and to be effect which is really what PTSness is.

    • An amazing thing about communicating is finding out that what you had assumed was not how it was at all. It’s amazing how many things can go wrong just because you didn’t find out more by communicating. Things are seldom as they seem. More communication, not less, is the remedy.
      It’s how we found out that we were involved in a cult and why. We finally were willing to have more communication on the subject. And thank heavens we did!

  20. Good Essay Tony.
    Lots of good responses as well.
    Any disaffection or disagreement (even when truly warranted)
    Is quickly defined and classified as
    “Black PR’, “external influence” “entheta” “Suppressive comments” or that the
    vocal person has undisclosed *CRIMES*.
    As reported by ex-Freewinds and ex-Flag pc’s who come for repair to the Independent community, David Miscavige is absolutely “off limits” in session. Nothing negative may be said about David Miscavige inside of the Cult of Scientology. Said another way, David Miscavige may only be lavishly praised and glorified inside of the Cult.
    Therefore any negative thought about Miscavige must be witheld in an auditing session and
    pcs have learned to be simply audited over witheld comm on the state of the Church and Miscavige.

    • Absolutly Karen, and you become fearful and your mind is become used to withold. You start to have wh of nothing. Invent WH. Full of false reads, loosing your viewpoint. The main point is witholding, witholding lke if you are doing something wrong. It’s exhausting.
      It makes an evil flow on you. You’re bloody wrong. It has nothing to do with actual tech. It’s reverse tech, enforcing sweetness and light on you. Learning you to not is.
      You are witholding your communications, regret to have been speaking and then regret to have been not speaking. Even when you are out, you are not fully out. Your mind has been hurt. All this years to be audited over stress.
      And you are wrong and in debts, and in regret. Regret to have given them money, wanting to go back in time to undo some of the shit.
      And this was not scientology, it was SP at work. And saying it loud doesnt even cure it. All the stress you went through has half killed the body, and you are old and sick. This is unconfronted scale of PTSness.

      • Thought stopping, nullification, and attacks on individuals who don’t toe the politically correct group-think du jour, aren’t just confined to the RCS. Per my observation over the last two years, those things are becoming more and more pervasive in the free Scientology field, as well. Particularly on popular blogs, where those who express their fealty to LRH and his applied religious philosophy, are often frowned at, ignored, shunned, or shuddered into silence with ad hominems such as ‘fundamentalist’, ‘Scilon’, and the like. Oftentimes this is done indirectly, but the effect is still the same. Many independent Scientologists wind up feeling that there isn’t a safe space online for them to communicate (besides secret or closed groups on FB). The simple, customary degree of religious tolerance that is extended to people of all faiths, seems to be in short supply for Scientologists.

      • Ronnie,
        If you don’t want to hear anything but what you like then you should be on a “private group” communication line. When you are willing to be in communication with the world at large you are going to hear some things that you don’t like. I think you will find more peace trying to deal with it, rather than trying to get everyone else to conform to your desires.

    • Yes, thank you Karen – now the Church is asking people via e-mail if one has a disagreement with management or COB. They are culling people and trying to disinfect the members still in. The reason – The Church of Scientology is hiding SECRETS! The Organization doesn’t want the members to know about the crimes inside so they disinfect by getting rid of people that may reveal the “outpoints” I like to call crimes! It is total spiritual abuse!

  21. Nice piece Tony – thansk for the parenthetical explanations – although I read scientolgese fairly well by now it is always good to assume that the curious and uninitiated may be lurking.
    You’ve captured one of the many inconsistencies in the circular logic that is scientology with criticisms and outpoints. Thoughts and ideas are only critical if we (big brother) say so, but we here we have a reference (there is one for every occasion) here to quell all your doubts.

  22. Tony, I am aware that you and your wife Mary Jo operate a manufacturing jeweler business in Seattle, Washington, As an artist myself, I am only too well aware of the exacting requirements of production, quality and presentation of a jeweler. Well, putting aside the subject matter of your OP for a moment, I just want to say what a marvelous job you have done here. The facets and “precision” have that same intrinsic attention to detail. Kudos, man! Granted, you have had to go to your own private hell & back, to get to where you are today, but we both know that it’s the journey, not the destination, that makes us stronger!!
    Back to your OP, you have said it all, most succinctly, and made a very valuable contribution toward the idea of, and possibly helping actually wake up, a few more languishing souls.
    Thanks, bro’ you’ve created another scintillating gem with this one.
    Calvin,

  23. Brilliant post Tony. You really nailed it! You can always tell when any group/society/church, etc is heading for a real bad situation; a common denominator is suppression of free communication. And you know things have gotten real bad when the group members themselves accept this suppression as some kind of virtue.

  24. Pingback: Dear Dean Wilbur | Scientologists getting back in comm

  25. Glad you said that, not to throw the baby out with the bath water. It always fills me with great melacholy to see good, fine people disgard the whole lot (tech) because of some book, bad experiences in the church or because of out Ruds. Locking up the light saber(tech) in a vault makes no sense. Especially when its the best weapon against ignorance. Seeing the differences between LRH the person, his creations and his organisations are vital in retaining a propper perspective. Loose that and you may as well be driftwood. There is just too much goodness and workability left in the unaltered tech out there. Why stop eating chocolate because one or two blocks were too bitter?

  26. Lovely essay Tony. The Church also has with holds. And just like anyone else , reacts violently when a with hold is missed. Criticism just re stimulates the with holds of the staff. It works both ways. Staff have overts and staff have with holds too. Not necessarily as Scientologists, but as PEOPLE. Staff that react violently to KR’s have with holds.
    I realized a long time ago a person’s “with holds” align to what tribe they are in or what building they are in. If you went over to the Catholic Church for a session, different kinds of with holds would read. Of course, you also would not get beat up for discussing them.
    If you think about the CDEI scale, people in the Catholic Church give up the with holds THEY CHOOSE. It is all the way up at the top of the CDEI scale. In Scientology, one is FORCED to give up the with holds that are important to OTHERS for THEIR security.
    Right there, “The group is all and the individual is nothing” mentality sets in.
    The first time in session I said something derogatory about a staff member, the auditor didn’t even acknowledge me. She just asked about my with holds. Complete denial of my view having any validity. But the staff can speak derogatorily about the public at any time, and even assume they have the power to govern other’s ethics. In this wise, they discourage people from inventing their own lives, realities and ethics.
    When Crowley wrote: “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law”, he was saying that the highest form of ethics is creating your OWN reality. This is very true and full responsibility. The Church does not want you to be fully responsible, they want to be responsible for your thinking, because they do not trust you. What does that say about them?
    There is a heavy emphasis put on “evil” in the Church.
    There are many people who believe that evil is a more potent force in this universe, than good. And those people that think this will fear evil and work to dismantle it as a threat.
    All of the “good guys” and “guys wearing the white hats” that go out and fight evil as an occupation, really do not believe that good is a more potent force. If they did, they would not be concerned at all about evil.
    Sure, you have to bypass some people that doing wrong. You have to stop a guy from waving a gun around. But how many people are doing anything like that?
    The fact that at the highest levels of the Church, the highest members on the bridge have mandatory sec checks every six months, illustrates how little trust the Church has in it’s own product, and how very afraid they are of anyone who may be truly liberated to think for themselves.
    This idea that evil is a more potent force, is a major WHY, in many cultures.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s